₦airaland Forum

dafidixone:
Can we ask them which is easier: "Accepting Jesus christ as Lord and Saviour" or "Smugling Muhammad into the Bible"?

@ davidlan Well,Jesus is not my Lord and saviour,he is a human being like me,he was a prophet of Allah and can never be Lord or God.He said it clearly in the Bible that i he can do Nothing except through God.So,why should you regard an ordinary messenger as your lord and God.This is Ridiculous.I think its high time for you to think and read your Bible again, today is not too late for you to accept islam, act fast, SALAM

Many non-Muslims, including those who study Islam at an introductory university level, have absolutely no concept of the importance of hadith in Islam. It is also perhaps safe to assume that many Muslims themselves do not fully grasp the fundamental importance of the hadith as a basis for the religion of Islam, and more particularly as a basis for the shari'a, or Islamic law. This essay will seek to both outline the importance of the hadith within Islam, and also try to present a survey of the various views on the authenticity of the hadith, both within Muslim and non-Muslim scholarship.
In order to understand the importance of the hadith it is essential to first know what the hadith is. Simply put, the hadith are collected traditions about the sunna of Muhammad. Thus they are composed of sayings attributed to Muhammad, as well as the actions of Muhammad in various situations, both of which are held to serve as examples and guidelines for Muslim belief and practice.
According to Muslims, the hadith is almost equal in importance to the Quran. Dr. Mazhar U. Kazi, in the introduction to his A Treasury of Ahadith states that "all the sayings, sermons, and utterances of the Prophet were, divinely inspired. In Arabic these are known as ahadith (singular: hadith)." Dr. Kazi goes on to say that "all of the actions and deeds of the Prophet were also divinely inspired."Dr. Kazi summarizes his view on the traditions with clarity:
The sunnah and ahadith are not to be taken as the wise sayings of sages and philosophers or the verdicts of rulers and leaders. One should believe with full conviction that the words and actions of the Prophet represent the will of Allah, and thus one has to follow and obey them in each and every circumstance of life.
Another Muslim scholar, John L. Esposito, in his work, Islam - The Straight Path states that,
Quranic principles and values were concretized and interpreted by the second and complementary source of law, the Sunna of the Prophet, the normative model behaviour of Muhammad. The importance of the Sunna is rooted in such Quranic injunctions as "obey God and obey the Messenger, If you should quarrel over anything refer it to God and the Messenger" (4:59) and "In God's messenger you have a fine model for anyone whose hope is in God and the Last Day" (33:21). Belief that Muhammad was inspired by God to act wisely, in accordance with God's will, led to the acceptance of his example, or Sunna, as supplement to the Quran, and thus, a material or textual source of the law.
The sunna, as embodied in the hadith is not to be underestimated or minimized as a material or textual source of the law. Though supplementary to the Quran, the hadith's central importance rests on the fact that it forms the basis for Islamic law, as the scholar Andrew Rippin clearly states:
The focal point of the law in , Islam is the sunna, the concept of the practice of Muhammad, as embodied in the hadith and transmitted faithfully by Muhammad's followers through the succeeding generations down to the present. The sunna presents, for the individual Muslim, the picture of the perfect way of life, in imitation of the precedent of Muhammad who was the perfect embodiment of the will of God.
Thus, in Islam the hadith are the recorded traditions of the divinely inspired actions of Muhammad. Yet, further study compels one to face the fact that there are some complexities involved in the use of the hadith as a basis for Islamic law and practice.
Difficulties appear to arise when the transmission and preservation of the hadith are considered. As John L. Esposito states, "by the ninth century, the number of traditions had mushroomed into the hundreds of thousands. They included pious fabrications by those who believed that their practices were in conformity with Islam and forgeries by factions involved in political and theological disputes." However, according to Dr. Kazi, Islamic scholars have answered these problems as,
Each hadith was scrutinized and tested for its authenticity and recorded only if it proved to be reliable, These scholars [Ibn Jurayj, Imam Malik, Sufyan ath-Thawri, Hammad bin Salamah, 'Abdullah bin Mubarak, Imam al-Awza'i] made significant contributions to 'ilm al-hadith and laid down solid foundations for the evaluation of ahadith. Consequently, a lot of inauthentic ahadith that had crept into the masses were discarded, and at the same time, reliable ahadith were widely disseminated.
According to Dr. Kazi, especially the works of al-Bukhari and Muslim are considered to be reliable and are termed correct.1 Dr. Kazi states that "all that was humanly possible for ensuring the authenticity of the ahadith was completed by the third century Hijrah, no other religion, nation, party or even small group of people can parallel what the early Muslims did to ensure the authenticity of ahadith and the sunna."
The concern of Dr. Kazi to ensure that Muslims believe the hadith are authentic as the divinely inspired words and actions of Muhammad, is quite understandable. This is especially clear when one once again considers the role of the hadith in Islam. Muslims are often quick to argue that in Islam, in contrast to Christianity, practice is of primary importance. 'What to do' is central in Islam, and thus the shari'a (rather than theology), is the 'queen of the sciences.' And, the Muslim will say, 'divine' revelation is the source of the shari'a. However, the Quran, though seen as the primary source of revelation, has no more than ten percent of its verses devoted to legal issues. There are only six hundred verses relating to prayer and ritual and some eighty verses relating to crime and punishment and inheritance laws. Thus it can be simply stated that the Quran is not a book of law. The basis of Islamic law or shari'a is, however, to be found in the hadith - giving the hadith a fundamental importance in the religion of Islam.
Questions about the authenticity of hadith begin to arise when one consults Maulana Muhammad Ali's A Manual of Hadith - a highly respected compendium of the Bukhari collection. In the second chapter which covers the topics of iman (faith) and islam (submission) a hadith is related in which Muhammad defines what faith is. In one of Bukhari's hadith, as relayed by Abu Hurairah, the Prophet states that,
Faith is that thou believe in Allah and His angels and in meeting with Him and (in) His messengers and that thou believe in being raised to life (after death).
Ali discloses that the same hadith is relayed by 'Umar, though 'Umar's version was rejected by Bukhari as it states that the Prophet, instead of saying "in meeting with Him", said "that thou believe in qadar, in the good of it and the evil of it." According to Ali this is because "the belief in qadar is evidently a doctrine of later growth and it is perhaps on the account of this flaw that Bukhari does not accept the version attributed to 'Umar." Yet, Bukhari does continue to use 'Umar as a source of authentic hadith throughout his collection.
Situations such as this one found in Bukhari's work, have created questions in the minds of many scholars, both Muslim and non-Muslim. Andrew Rippin, in his work Muslims - Their Religious Beliefs and Practices, states that,
Some Muslims picked up on this and used these sorts of doubt about the veracity of the material to attack the authority of the sunna. This was primarily an Egyptian phenomenon; the criticism of the sunna as a whole, however, has much earlier roots, especially in India, where the problem was attacked in more of a theological manner than a historical one.
Rippin goes on to present an interesting survey of some of the Muslim leaders and scholars who have either admitted to the weakness of the hadith, or been openly critical of it.
Ghulam Ahmad Parvez, born in 1903, in East Punjab, India, was one of the first Muslim critics of the hadith. Parvez realized that hadith had been treated as a divinely inspired source in Islam, and "the shari'a, the path of life which Muslims follow, was as a result of the status given to the sunna as a source of revealed knowledge, fundamentally wrong." Parvez argued that "the Quran contains no ruling saying that hadith must be followed" contending that the word hikma in the Quran (2:129) was meant in the general sense of 'wisdom', and that the verse "Whatever the messenger gives you, take; whatever he forbids you, give over" (59:7) referred to the distribution of loot after battle. Parvez also noted that "Hadith reports occasionally contradict the Qur'an; for example the punishment for adultery is 100 lashes in the Qur'an but stoning in the hadith."Another point of Parvez's argument was that "Muhammad was an ordinary man according to Qur'an sura 18 verse 100, and that he could have erred." All in all Parvez was convinced that "the unreliability of hadith transmission , undermines its validity." This was a serious argument, as the Muslim leader Mawdudi realized, being concerned that "the position Parvez argued vis-a-vis the hadith reports, especially where it raises issues concerning their historical value, would eventually be applied to the Quran, and Islam would crumble as a result."
Another Muslim scholar, Dr. Kassim Ahmad, of Malaysia, authored a work entitled Hadith - A Reevaluation, which was "banned by the Malaysian Home Ministry on 8 July 1986, in order to 'safeguard the interests of the people and the country'." The work rejected hadith as a basis for theology and law, and stated that "the hadith are 'sectarian, anti-science, anti-reason and anti-women'." Rippin states that,
According to available summaries of the book, he [Ahmad] poses four main questions:
1. Did Muhammad bring one or two books?
2. Why did the hadith take 250-350 years to be compiled and why do Sunnis have different collections from Shi'ites?
3. What factors led to the emergence of the hadith?
4. What is the connection between the hadith and the decline and backwardness of Islam?
Clearly, even in Muslim circles there is skepticism about the authenticity of the hadith collections. Yet, to this point, it is the Western scholars of Islam who have presented the most searching critique of the hadith collections.
Ignaz Goldhizer was perhaps the first serious Western critic of the authenticity of hadith, and it is his work that has formed much of the basis for further scholarship. Goldhizer begins with a history and definition of the sunna - a concept which he states was in existence among the Arab communities long before the arrival of Islam. Goldhizer states,
There was no need for Muslims to invent this concept and its practical significance; they were already current among the old pagans of the Jahiliyya. For them sunna was all that corresponded to the traditions of the Arabs and the customs and habits of their ancestors, and in this sense the word was still used in Islamic times by those Arab communities which had been only very little affected by Muslim religion. Under Islam the content of the old concept and the meaning of the word that corresponded to it underwent a change. To the pious followers of Muhammad , sunna meant all that could be shown to have been the practices of the Prophet and his earliest followers. The Muslim community was supposed to honour and obey the new sunna in the same way as the pagan Arabs revered the sunna of their ancestors.
Bid'a or innovation was viewed to be the opposite of sunna. Goldhizer recounts a hadith (Al-Nasa'i, I, p.143) of the Prophet which says, "Verily the most truthful communication is the Book of Allah, the best guidance is from Muhammad, and the worst of all things are innovations; every innovation is heresy, every heresy is error, and every error leads to hell." Yet, as Goldhizer soon shows, there is great evidence to show that much of the ahadith is either inauthentic, or incapable of being proven authentic, and thus to all appearances it is both innovation from a theological perspective, and lacking of any proof of authenticity from an objective historical perspective.
One example of the fabrication of hadith is that done by the Ummayad caliph 'Abd al-Malik, who is considered to be an important and sound scholar of the collection of hadith. Goldhizer explains,
When the Umayyad caliph 'Abd al-Malik wished to stop the pilgrimages to Mecca because he was worried lest his rival 'Abd Allah b. Zubayr should force the Syrians journeying to the holy places in Hijaz to pay him homage, he had recourse to the expedient of the doctrine of the vicarious hajj to the Qubbat al-Sakhra in Jerusalem. He decreed that obligatory circumambulation (tawaf) could take place at the sacred place in Jerusalem with the same validity as that around the Ka'ba ordained in Islamic law. The pious theologian al-Zuhri was given the task of justifying this politically motivated reform of religious life by making up and spreading a saying traced back to the Prophet, according to which there are three mosques to which people may take pilgrimages: those in Mecca, Medina, and Jerusalem. , An addition which, apparently, belonged to its original form but was later neglected by leveling orthodoxy in this and related sayings: 'and a prayer in the Bayt al-Maqdis of Jerusalem is better than a thousand prayers in other holy places,' i.e. even Mecca or Medina. Later, too, 'Abd al-Malik is quoted when the pilgrimage to Jerusalem is to be equated with that to Mecca,
Goldhizer boldly sums up the massive evidence for the "tendentious fabrications of traditions during the first century of Islam" with the statement that,
, it is a matter for psychologists to find and analyze the motives of the soul which made such forgeries acceptable to pious minds as morally justified means of furthering a cause, The most favourable explanation which one can give of these phenomena is presumably to assume that the support of a new doctrine , with the authority of Muhammad was the form in which it was thought good to express the high religious justification of that doctrine. The end sanctified the means.
Of course the fabrication of ahadith, and their lack of authenticity has often left orthodox Muslim scholars in a difficult position, as Goldhizer states,
'Ali b. Sulayman al-Bajama 'wi, a theologian who in recent times has taken great pains in his commentaries on the six canonical works on tradition, says: 'One of the strangest things that has ever happened to me was this: when I recited one of the traditional sayings according to which scholars are told not to mingle with the sultans, one of my listeners said: "How could the Prophet had said this, since there were no sultans in his days?" This poor man did not know the tradition that the apostle of God predicted with prophetical insight everything that is going to happen until the hour of resurrection.'
Another noted Western scholar who delves into the study of the authenticity of hadith is G.H.A Juynboll, whose work Muslim tradition - Studies in chronology, provenance and authorship of early hadith is a powerful critique of not only the authenticity of hadith, but also of scholarly works which have attempted to support notions of the authenticity of hadith. Juynboll's criticism of the 'authenticity' of hadith are numerous and well researched. In criticizing the isnad's he quite bluntly states that,
, I am skeptical as to whether we will ever be able to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that what we have in the way of 'sound prophetic traditions' is indeed just what it purports to be.
Juynboll uses an effective case study approach in his critique of the isnad. One example is the "so-called 'golden chain' (silsilat adh-dhahab): Malik - Nafi - 'Abd Allah b. 'Umar - Prophet." Juynboll also brings serious questions to bear on "the case of Anas."45 He states that,
, Anas' advanced age - according to the most authoritative reports he died in 93/711 when he was allegedly one hundred and three - appeared especially convenient for those isnad forgers who were loath to go to a lot of trouble concocting complicated isnads and simply listed a rather late Successor who allegedly had it from Anas who allegedly had it from the prophet, Indeed, Anas has become such a crucial figure in isnads that he is one of the most important Companions, whose alleged activities caused other, most probably unhistorical, people with his name to into existence. The ensuing confusion, inevitable as we have learned , makes the reliability of any isnad featuring Anas suspect under the best of circumstances.
A thorough study, Juynboll's work presents what is perhaps the most articulate and documented critique of the notion of the 'authenticity' of hadith, to this day.
Clearly, the evidence to refute any notions of solid historical authenticity of hadith reports is overwhelming. Severe theological and historical problems exist, and are blatantly evident even in Bukhari's collection of hadith - which is considered to be "most reliable and [is] termed 'sahih' (correct)." The authenticity of hadith transmitted by men such as Anas b. Malik and Abu Hurayra is extremely dubious. Contradictions between the hadith and the Quran remain unsolved. The evidence is all too compelling - even without examining the enormous disparities between the traditions of the various sects of Islam.
The evidence presents a shattering blow to the religion of Islam, as the shari'a, rather than being rooted in the "words and actions of the Prophet [representing] the will of Allah," is merely built on the tradition of men. The problem of the hadith may carry other serious ramifications well, as "Fazlur Rahman points out, 'the historical validity of the Koran itself is vouchsafed only by the tradition.'"49 However, (and perhaps not surprisingly, when these consequences are considered) orthodox Muslim scholarship has, to this point, chosen largely to ignore the issue,
Cannons for the Evaluation of Ahadith1
A hadith consists of two parts: its text, called matn, and its chain of narrators, called isnad. Comprehensive and strict criteria were separately developed for the evaluation of matn and isnad. The former is regarded as the internal test of ahadith, and the latter is considered the external test. A hadith was accepted as authentic and recorded into text only when it met both of these criteria independently.
Criteria for the Evaluation of Isnad
The unblemished and undisputed character of the narrator, called rawi, was the most important consideration for the acceptance of a hadith. As stated earlier, a new branch of 'ilm al-hadith known as asma' ar-rijal was developed to evaluate the credibility of narrators. The following are a few of the criteria utilized for this purpose:
1. The name, nickname, title, parentage and occupation of the narrator should be known.
2. The original narrator should have stated that he heard the hadith directly from the Prophet.
3. If a narrator referred his hadith to another narrator, the two should have lived in the same period and have had the possibility of meeting each other.
4. At the time of hearing and transmitting the hadith, the narrator should have been physically and mentally capable of understanding and remembering it.
5. The narrator should have been known as a pious and virtuous person.
6. The narrator should not have been accused of having lied, given false evidence or committed a crime.
7. The narrator should not have spoken against other reliable people.
8. The narrator's religious beliefs and practices should have been known to be correct.
9. The narrator should not have carried out and practiced peculiar religious beliefs of his own.
Criteria for the Evaluation of Matn
1. The text should have been stated in plain and simple language.
2. A text in non-Arabic or couched in indecent language was rejected.
3. A text prescribing heavy punishment for minor sins or exceptionally large reward for small virtues was rejected.
4. A text which referred to actions that should have been commonly known and practiced by others but were not known and practiced was rejected.
5. A text contrary to the basic teachings of the Qur'an was rejected.
6. A text contrary to other ahadith was rejected.
7. A text contrary to basic reason, logic and the known principles of human society was rejected.
8. A text inconsistent with historical facts was rejected.
9. Extreme care was taken to ensure the text was the original narration of the Prophet and not the sense of what the narrator heard. The meaning of the hadith was accepted only when the narrator was well known for his piety and integrity of character.
10. A text derogatory to the Prophet, members of his family or his companions was rejected.
11. A text by an obscure narrator which was not known during the age of sahabah [the Prophet's companions] or the tabi'een [those who inherited the knowledge of the sahabah] was rejected.
Along with these generally accepted criteria, each scholar then developed and practiced his own set of specific criteria to further ensure the authenticity of each hadith. For instance, Imam al-Bukhari would not accept a hadith unless it clearly stated that narrator A had heard it from narrator B. He would not accept the general statement that A narrated through B. On this basis he did not accept a single hadith narrated through 'Uthman, even though Hasan al-Basri always stayed very close to 'Ali. Additionally, it is stated that Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal practiced each hadith before recording it in his Musnad [book or collection of hadith].

Stop Calling Northern People animal,if they are animal,then you are the grass that they eat everyday, You useless extremist

"I (God) will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee (moses), and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him."

Deuteronomy 18:18


There are many verses in the Old Testament that predict the coming of Jesus (pbuh). This one, however, is not one of them. This can be clearly seen from the following four points:


a) Like unto moses

Muslims believe in all of the previous prophets. They make no distinction between them, nor do they place one above the others in piety. However, they are all human, and as humans they differ from one another in their characteristics. Let us compare these characteristics:

1) Both Christians and Muslims agree that both Moses and Muhammad (pbut) had fathers and mothers. They both also believe that Jesus (pbuh) had only a mother and no father. Therefore, Muhammad is like Moses, but Jesus is unlike Moses.

2) Both Moses and Muhammad (pbut) married and begat children. Jesus (pbuh) never married nor had any offspring. Therefore, Muhammad is like Moses, but Jesus is unlike Moses.

3) Moses (pbuh) was accepted by the Jews and to this day, as a nation, they accept him as their prophet. Muhammad (pbuh) was accepted by his people, and as a nation, over one billion Muslims around the world accept him as the prophet of Allah. Jesus (pbuh), however, was rejected by his people (the Jews) as stated in the Christian's own Bible: "He (Jesus) came unto his own, but his own received him not" (John 1:11) Therefore, Muhammad is like Moses, but Jesus is unlike Moses.

4) Both Moses and Muhammad (pbut) were kings on Earth in the sense that they had the ultimate power of government, the power to inflict capital punishment. When the Jews brought before Moses (pbuh) the Israelite who had been caught collecting firewood on the Sabbath, Moses had him stoned to death (Numbers 15:36). Muhammad (pbuh) had similar authority. When a woman came before him confessing (with no witnesses) to having committed adultery, he gave her a chance to consider the severity of her claim and the punishment she would receive. When she insisted, he ordered her stoned to death and ordered his companions to respect her for her sincere repentance. Jesus (pbuh), however, explicitly refuted the claim that he had a kingdom on earth. When he was dragged before the Roman Governor Pontious Pilate with a charge of sedition he said: (John 18:36) "Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence." Jesus (pbuh) would not resort to lying to save his skin. Thus, he had no earthly kingdom. Further, in John 8:1-7 we read the story of the woman who was taken in adultery by the Jews and brought before Jesus (pbuh). They were hoping to trap him by either having him contradict the laws of Moses (pbuh) by not stoning her, or by placing him in a bad position with the Roman empire by taking the law into his own hands and ordering her stoned. Jesus cleverly extracted himself from this predicament by commanding them: "He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her." So the woman was set free. Therefore, Muhammad is like Moses, but Jesus is unlike Moses.

5) Both Moses and Muhammad (pbut) came with a new and comprehensive set of laws for their people. The law brought by prophet Moses was named the Judaic Law, and the law brought by prophet Muhammad was named the Shari'ah. Jesus (pbuh) however, as witnessed by Matthew, claimed to have not introduced any new laws, but to have come to renew the law of Moses (pbuh) and to have neither added nor subtracted from it. In Matthew 5:17-18 we read: "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." Therefore, Muhammad is like Moses, but Jesus is unlike Moses.

6) Moses lead his people in a secret mass exodus from their hometown to Median in an attempt to flee the persecution of their enemies. Muhammad (pbut) too emigrated with his followers from their home town to Madinah in secret in order to flee the torture of their enemies. Jesus, however, never led his followers in a any sort of mass exodus from their hometowns . Therefore, Muhammad is like Moses, but Jesus is unlike Moses.

7) Moses was victorious over his enemies both morally as well as physically. Pharaoh was defeated by Moses and all of his army were drowned in the sea. Muhammad (pbuh) too met his enemies in battle and defeated them all. This too was a moral as well as a physical victory. Jesus (pbuh) on the other hand is claimed in the Bible to have been crucified by his enemies. Thus, his victory was only a moral one. Therefore, Muhammad is like Moses, but Jesus is unlike Moses.

Both Moses and Muhammad (pbut) died natural deaths. Jesus (pbuh), is claimed by the Christians to have died violently on the cross. Therefore, Muhammad is like Moses, but Jesus is unlike Moses.

9) Both Moses and Muhammad (pbut) lie buried in the ground. Jesus (pbuh), however, is claimed by the Christians to abide in heaven. Therefore, Muhammad is like Moses, but Jesus is unlike Moses.

10) Most Christians claim that Jesus (pbuh) is God. No Christian or Muslim, however, claims that Moses or Muhammad (pbut) was God. Therefore, Muhammad is like Moses, but Jesus is unlike Moses.

11) Both Moses and Muhammad (pbuh) began their prophetic missions at the age of forty. The Bible tells us that Jesus (pbuh) began at thirty. Therefore, Muhammad is like Moses, but Jesus is unlike Moses.

12) Christians claim that Jesus (pbuh) was resurrected after his death. Neither Muslims nor Christians claim that Moses or Muhammad was resurrected. Therefore, Muhammad is like Moses, but Jesus is unlike Moses.

There are many additional points that could be mentioned but we will suffice with these for now.


b) Cannot be a Jew

Well, is Muhammad (pbuh) the only prophet who is "Like unto Moses"? For example, what about Jesus (pbuh)? Well, we should then notice that Jesus (pbuh) was a Jew,


"Then saith the woman of Samaria unto him, How is it that thou (Jesus), being a Jew, askest drink of me, which am a woman of Samaria?"

John 4:9

and the Bible specifically denies that this awaited prophet will be a Jew. We are told that in Deuteronomy:


"And there arose NOT a prophet since in Israel LIKE unto Moses."

Deuteronomy 34:10


This awaited prophet, however, must be "LIKE unto thee (Moses)." So he will come from OUTSIDE of Israel.


c) Is from the BRETHREN of the Jews

If this prophet can not be a Jew, then what is left? In this verse, God speaks to Moses (pbuh) about the Jews as a racial entity. The awaited prophet is claimed to not be "from the Jews" or "from among themselves" but rather "from among their (the Jew's) brethren." Who are the brethren of the Jewish nation? The Jews are the sons Jacob, the son of Isaac, the son of Abraham. Isaac's older brother was Ishmael, the father of the Arabs. Thus, the brethren of the Jewish nation is the nation of the Arabs. This statement is further reinforced by the following definition of "Brethren" in the Hebrew Dictionary of the Bible:


"personification of a group of tribes who were regarded as near kinsmen of the Israelites."

Muhammad in the Bible, Jamal Badawi, p. 16


Please compare this expression with that of the Qur'an:


"Indeed Allah has conferred a great favor upon the believers (Muslims) when He sent among them a messenger from among themselves, reciting unto them His verses, purifying them and teaching them the Book and wisdom; although before that they were in manifest error."

The noble Qur'an, Aal-Umran(3):164


There has come unto you (O Muslims) a messenger from among yourselves (Muhammad, pbuh). It grieves him that you should receive any injury or difficulty, full of concern for you, for the believers [he is] full of pity, kind and merciful.

The noble Qur'an, Al-Tawba(9):128



d) Put my words in his mouth

If we were to read the Qur'an we would find that it contains many verses stating "I am your Lord, so worship Me" (Al-Anbia: 92, Al-Muminoon: 52), "Verily, I am Allah" (Taha: 14, Al-Namil: 9, Al-Qasas: 30), "I am thy Lord" (Taha: 19). These verses are not preceded by "I heard God say, ," or "And God said, ," or similar statements which would be the words of a man transmitting the words of God, rather, their form is that of the first person who speaks of himself. Neither Muhammad (pbuh) nor any Muslim ever claimed that Muhammad (pbuh) was God, therefore, Muhammad (pbuh) was speaking with his mouth the words of God. Similarly, we can find in the Qur'an more than four hundred verses of the form "Say (O Muhammad) : , " In other words God Almighty is putting His words into Muhammad's (pbuh) mouth and commanding him to speak them.


We also find in the Qur'an verses which command Muhammad (pbuh) to perform a certain action, such as the opening verses of Al-Muzzamil(73), or which even go so far as to reproach Muhammad (pbuh), such as the chapter of Al-Tahreem(66) or the chapter of Abasa(80).


Christians claim that the Bible has many "authors," and that while the "inspiration" is from God, still, the words are those of mortal men.


Dr. W Graham Scroggie of the Moody Bible institute, Chicago, says on page 17 of his book "It is human, yet divine":


", Yes, the Bible is human, although some out of zeal which is not according to knowledge, have denied this. Those books have passed through the minds of men, are written in the language of men, were penned by the hands of men and bear in their style the characteristics of men, "


Kenneth Cragg, the Anglican Bishop of Jerusalem, says on page 277 of his book, "The call of the minaret":


", Not so the New testament, There is condensation and editing; there is choice reproduction and witness. The Gospels have come through the mind of the church behind the authors. They represent experience and history, "


(Both quotes have been obtained from the books of Ahmed Deedat)


The Qur'an, however, is the book of God in both word and meaning. An example of this is a teacher who sends two students to teach what they have learned from him. The first is told to "teach them what I taught you." While the second is given a textbook written by this teacher and told to read verbatim from this book and say nothing of his own accord. The first will convey the thoughts of the teacher. The second will convey both his thoughts and his words.


Sir William Muir says:

"There is probably in the world no other book which has remained twelve centuries (at the time of this quote) with so pure a text"

Life of Muhammad from original sources, Sir William Muir, Edinburough, J. Grant, p. xxii-xxiii


This matter becomes clearer when studying for example the personal greetings and salutations of Paul and his friends at the ends of Titus (3:15), 2 Timothy (4:19), 1 Thessalonians (5:26) , etc. These words are not the word of God but the personal greetings of Paul and his friends. There are many such examples to be found in the Bible. The Qur'an contains no such verses from Muhammad (pbuh). The words of Muhammad (pbuh) are collected in a completely separate reference from the Qur'an called "The Sunnah" (or the "Hadeeth". We notice from all this that even the Church itself does not claim that the Bible is the actual word of God, but His "inspiration" (his teachings) through the words of men. The Qur'an, however, is the actual word of God.


"And (remember) when Abraham and Ishmael were raising the foundations of the House (the Ka'aba in Makkah), [praying]: Our Lord! Accept from us [this service]. Verily! You, [only You,] are the Hearer, the Knower. Our Lord! And make us submissive unto You and of our offspring a nation submissive unto You, and show us our ways of worship, and relent toward us. Verily! You, [only You,] are the Relenting, the Merciful. Our Lord! And send among them a messenger from among them who shall recite unto them Your verses, and shall instruct them in the Book and in wisdom and shall purify them. Verily! You, [only You,] are the Mighty, the Wise. And who desires other than the path of Abraham except he who befools himself? Truly, We chose him in this world, and Verily! In the Hereafter he shall be among the righteous. When his Lord said unto him: Surrender! (literally: 'Be a Muslim!') he said: I have surrendered (Literally: 'I have become a Muslim') to the Lord of creation."

The noble Qur'an, Al-Baqarah(2):127-131



e) Grave Warnings for all who do not follow him:

So what shall we say to those who say: "Jesus has redeemed us. We have no need to follow any future prophets."? After the above verse of Deuteronomy, God himself threatens severe retribution against all those who do not follow this awaited prophet. In Deuteronomy we read:


"And it shall come to pass, [that] whosoever will not hearken unto my words which he shall speak in my name, I will require [it] of him." (in some translations: "I will be the Revenger"

Deuteronomy 18:19



Well, do Muslims read the word of God (The Qur'an) in His name? The answer is: Yes. Muhammad (pbuh) never in his lifetime claimed that the Qur'an was his words, but the words of God it is only the West which claims that it is his words. Further, when a Muslim reads a verse or chapter of the Qur'an, you will find that they have been taught to always start their recitation with the words: "In the name of God, Most Gracious, Most Merciful." The Qur'an contains 114 Chapters. If we were to follow them on down we would find that the first chapter, second chapter, third chapter, and so on all begin with the words "In the name of God, Most Gracious, Most Merciful." (there is one exception). So not only Muhammad (pbuh), but all Muslims in general recite the words of God in His name. Indeed, the Qur'an does even confirm this same warning of Deuteronomy:


"And whosoever seeks other than Islam as their religion it will not be accepted from him, and he shall be in the hereafter among those who have lost"

The noble Qur'an, A'al Umran(3):85

Well, i Think Christian are afraid to coment on this,this is ridiculous to their faith LOL

@Jakumo

Jakumo:
Why don't those brain-dead Sudanese simply wait for the Prophet to personally strike the infidel with a bolt of lightning as punishment for her sin, because if He is so all-knowing and all-powerful[i][/i], then of course He shouldn't need a bunch of anal-retentive turban-headed morons to arrest anyone on his behalf ?

Rather than getting all worked up over a teddy bear named Mohamed, those cretinous buffoons would do better to begin worshipping that teddy bear since he bears the same name as their prophet, and could only have been so named due to the Hand of God.

Well,Mr. Jakumo,Dont be too emotional,Muhammad is not all knowing and all powerful as you ascribe Jesus to be in christianity where you equate him with Almighty God.it is only Allah that is all knowing and Powerful,Stop posting Non-sense here.

texazzpete:
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/rtrs/20071126/tpl-uk-sudan-prophet-43a8d4f_3.html

A British woman teaching in a Sudanese school has been arrested by the Sudanese Police for allegedly 'Insulting the Prophet'.
This utterly ridiculous charge came about because she let her students name a teddy bear 'Muhammad'.
Read the full story from the provided link.

I this she is brain washed,as a Teacher,You need to be very careful about things,she is a Big disgrace to United Kingdom,is she that Naive or Daft,she let 7yrs old kids put her into trouble,she is not supposed to be a teacher.The school supposed to sack her for carelessness.Muslim doesnt play with their religion like others,do,one needs to be very careful
Hmmmm, the Poor woman is just of Victim of ignorance, POOR HER

The Inscription on the old Naira Note is not Arabic inscription,Rather,its what they call "Anjemin" which means Trasliteration.As we all know that the most Populous people in Nigeria are Hausa/fulanis and some of them are not educated,the best way to recognise currency is to read the anjemi inscription on the Naira Note.My friends,if u understand Hausa very well and you know Anjemin,You will discover that those inscription are not arabic,Rather,it is Hausa Language.as the inscription is written in western Translitetion style,what is the FAITH of a Typical Village Fulani man who is not able to acquire western education, Please, dont let us be emotional,lets be objective.

The Inscription on the old Naira Note is not Arabic inscription,Rather,its what they call "Anjemin" which means Trasliteration.As we all know that the most Populous people in Nigeria are Hausa/fulanis and some of them are not educated,the best way to recognise currency is to read the anjemi inscription on the Naira Note.My friends,if u understand Hausa very well and you know Anjemin,You will discover that those inscription are not arabic,Rather,it is Hausa Language.as the inscription is written in western Translitetion style,what is the FAITH of a Typical Village Fulani man who is not able to acquire western education, Please, dont let us be emotional,lets be objective.

hmmm, this is ridiculous to christianity,Does singing have any basis in christiandom,i need a biblical prove Please,

Muslims are not the only ones who believe that Jesus (pbuh) is mortal and not a god. The Jews also believe this, in addition to the very first groups of Christianity such as the Ebonites, the Cerinthians, the Basilidians, the Capocratians, and the Hypisistarians. The Arians, Paulicians and Goths also accepted Jesus (pbuh) as a prophet of God. Even in the modern age there are churches in Asia, in Africa, the Unitarian church, the Jehovah's witnesses, and even the majority of today's Anglican Bishops do not worship Jesus (pbuh) as God.


In the British newspaper the "Daily News" 25/6/84 under the heading "Shock survey of Anglican Bishops" We read


"More than half of England's Anglican Bishops say that Christians are not obliged to believe that Jesus Christ was God, according to a survey published today. The pole of 31 of England's 39 bishops shows that many of them think that Christ's miracles, the virgin birth and the resurrection might not have happened exactly as described in the Bible. Only 11 of the bishops insisted that Christians must regard Christ as both God and man, while 19 said it was sufficient to regard Jesus as 'God's supreme agent'"


But what is a messenger of God? Is he not "God's supreme agent" ?. This is indeed what God Himself has already told us in the noble Qur'an 1400 years ago, and exactly what Jesus (pbuh) himself testified to in the Bible:


"And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent."

John 17:3


Astounding, isn't it? With every passing day, the most learned among the Christian community are slowly recognizing the truth and drawing closer and closer to Islam. These are not Muslims who issued this statement. These are not "liberal" Christians. These are the most learned and most highly esteemed men of the Anglican Church. These men have dedicated their whole lives to the study of the religion of Jesus, and their study has driven them to the truth which God had already revealed to them in the Qur'an 1400 years ago: That Jesus was not God. That God is not a Trinity. And that the stories of the ministry of Jesus in the Bible have been extensively tampered with by the hands of mankind.


"And when Allah said: O Jesus, son of Mary! Did you say unto mankind: Take me and my mother for two gods beside Allah? he said: Be You glorified. It was not mine to utter that to which I had no right. If I used to say it, then You knew it. You know what is in my [innermost] self but I know not what is in Yours. Truly! You, only You are the Knower of things hidden. I spoke unto them only that which You commanded me, (saying): Worship Allah, my Lord and your Lord, and I was a witness over them while I dwelt among them, and when You took me You were the Watcher over them, and You are Witness over all things."

The noble Qur'an, Al-Maidah(5):116-118


The Church, as Heinz Zahrnt put it "put words into the mouth of Jesus which he never spoke and attributed actions to him which he never performed." One of those who has shown that most of what the church says about Jesus is baseless is Rudolph Augustein in his book "Jesus the Son of Man." Another very comprehensive study of this matter can be found in the book "The Myth of God Incarnate" which was written by seven theologian scholars in England in 1977 and edited by John Hick. Their conclusion in this matter is that Jesus was "a man approved by God, for a special role within the divine purpose, and, the later conception of him as God incarnate , is a mythological or poetic way of expressing his significance for us." See also John Mackinnon Robertson's "Christianity and Mythology" T.W Doane's "The Bible Myths and their Parallels in Other Religions" (A good summary of these studies is available in M.F. Ansarei, "Islam and Christianity in the Modern World".


A University of Richmond professor, Dr. Robert Alley, after considerable research into newly found ancient documents concludes that


", The (Biblical) passages where Jesus talks about the Son of God are later additions, what the church said about him. Such a claim of deity for himself would not have been consistent with his entire lifestyle as we can reconstruct. For the first three decades after Jesus' death Christianity continued as a sect within Judaism. The first three decades of the existence of the church were within the synagogue. That would have been beyond belief if they (the followers) had boldly proclaimed the deity of Jesus."


Is there any confirmation of this in the Bible, yes! If we were to read the Bible we would find that long after the departure of Jesus, his faithful followers continued to "keep up their daily attendance at the Temple" (Acts 2:46) It would be beyond belief to imagine that had Jesus indeed preached to his apostles that he was God, and if Jesus had indeed commanded them to forsake the commandments, that they would then disregard all of this and continue to worship in a Jewish synagogue on a daily basis, let alone the great Temple itself. It is further beyond belief that the Jews of the Temple would stand idly by and allow them to do this if they were preaching the total cancellation of the law of Moses and that Jesus was God.


Can any Trinitarian Christian, even in their wildest fantasies, imagine that the Jews in an orthodox Jewish synagogue would stand idly by while he took out his cross and prayed to Jesus in the midst of their synagogue and was publicly calling others to worship Jesus and forsake the commandments? How much more preposterous to imagine that they would have nothing to say to someone who did that in their most sacred of all synagogues, the Temple, on a daily basis yet. This is further evidence in support of the Qur'an, that Jesus only called his followers to a continuation of the religion of Moses and not by any means to the total cancellation and destruction of that law.


In the previous section, we read the following verses of the Bible:

"Know therefore this day, and consider [it] in thine heart, that the LORD he [is] God in heaven above, and upon the earth beneath: [there is] none else." Deuteronomy 4:39.
"Thou shalt have no other gods before me." Exodus 20:3
"For thou shalt worship no other god: for the LORD, whose name [is] Jealous, [is] a jealous God:" Exodus 34:14
"Ye [are] my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I [am] he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me. I, [even] I, [am] the LORD; and beside me [there is] no savior." Isaiah 43:10-11.
"Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I [am] the first, and I [am] the last; and beside me [there is] no God." Isaiah 44:6
"That they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the west, that [there is] none beside me. I [am] the LORD, and [there is] none else." Isaiah 45:6
"For thus saith the LORD that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I [am] the LORD; and [there is] none else." Isaiah 45:18.
"Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth: for I [am] God, and [there is] none else." Isaiah 45:22


Now we should begin to ask ourselves: If there was no god before or after God Almighty, then how was Jesus (pbuh) "begotten" as a god? The answer is: he was not. He was a mortal man, not a god. We even have the testimony of the majority of today's Anglican Bishops in defense of this basic truth. If we want the testimony of a trustworthy witness then how much more trustworthy a witness shall we ever find than the majority of the most learned and respected conservative Christians of the Anglican Church?


The Bible only preaches that Jesus is God and that God is a Trinity to those who do not know it's innermost details and the truth of the history of the Church as these men have come to know it. But let us move on in our study of the Biblical verses so that we can see only a small sampling of the evidence that has made the truth clear to these men.

@ combatant : im Very happy for you,may we dwell together in al- janah firdauz for ever, Amen wa Amen, well, im not a New convert,i was born a Muslim and a Graduate of Islamic studies from one of the reputable univeristies in Nigeria, im happy to see someone like you in this forum.Ilal amam,Inshallah

@dafidixone. Man, You need to read My new Post and let me know what you think about that,proof me wrong and justify the fact that christian are not idol worshippers

This is my personnel testimony. As might you know, some churches have pictures, statues, graven images. This angers God very much, in the Bible, Christians are told over 126 times that they are forbidden to make or use images of Saints or others in their worship.

For example;

Ex 20:4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness [of any thing] that [is] in heaven above, or that [is] in the earth beneath, or that [is] in the water under the earth:"

Le 26:1 Ye shall make you no idols nor graven image, neither rear you up a standing image, neither shall ye set up [any] image of stone in your land, to bow down unto it: for I [am] the LORD your God"

Graven images is a topic of interest to me because while I was visiting a Catholic church, (Catholic churches contain the most statues and pictures more than other churches) I felt the Spirit. It was so
powerful and strong that I thought my heart was going to burst. It was like a hot coal filling up my chest. The statues were on all sides of me, behind me, in front of me, on my left and right. It was obvious others in this church were feeling the Spirit too.

Some were moaning and screaming with joy.

Once I left the church, as soon as the spirit came, so it had left. I then realized the difference between the spirits from the statues and the spirit from God.

The spirit from the statues which I felt in the church would grab hold of your heart and squeeze until you do not know the difference between up or down. Tthe spirit from God is more subtle but both your heart and mind are a part of it.

When I felt the spirit in the church, it was so strong. It clasped the heart so tightly that your mind turns off and you are simply letting your body take control. So your body is experiencing a strong surge or a high while your mind is overlooked, untouched. This clarified to me that I am not to chase the spirit that made me the highest, but rather the spirit that spoke to both my mind and heart.

God frequently spoke negatively about the statues, although it is not spelt out. I think it is because it was obvious that they have the potential to lead astray, to have us follow our hearts only.

Ps 78:58 For they provoked him to anger with their high places; they moved him to jealousy with their graven images.

Ps 97:7 All worshipers of images are put to shame, who make their boast in worthless idols; all gods bow down before him.

Isa 42:8 I am the LORD, that is my name; my glory I give to no other, nor my praise to graven images.

We see in the Holy Qur'an:

"Ye serve instead of Allah only idols, and ye only invent a lie. Lo! those whom ye serve instead of Allah own no provision for you. So seek your provision from Allah, and serve Him, and give thanks unto Him, (for) unto Him ye will be brought back. {Holy Qur'an translation 29:17}

"And they set up (idols) as equal to Allah, to mislead (men) from the Path! Say: "Enjoy (your brief power)! But verily ye are making straightway for Hell!" {Holy Qur'an translation 14:30}

We are often warned in all the Scriptures sent by God, to avoid letting the body lead us astray and are encouraged to use our God given minds. The use of the minds is promoted in both the Qur'an and the Bible over a 100 times each.

In conclusion, the Spirit of the statues can be like a drug, leaving your mind intoxicated, this drug has captured many and has prompted them to put more graven images in their place of worship and even hang graven images against their chest to maintain this spiritual _high_ .

If a Christian comes to you and wants you to experience this intoxicating feeling , [as the anti-drug commercials tell us] "Just Say No"

@dafidixone.Mr. AKORIBURUKUDE or what is your name,if i were you,i will deregister my Acc with Nairaland and wont even visit this forum again,i can imagine an 18 yrs old Girl beating a 27 yrs old ass like you hands now,what a big shme LOL.you start a topic and you cant defend and finish it.You have a lots of problems in your life which are yarning for solution,Leave my Beloved Muhammad alone and get a life, You unemployed ass!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Hello man,i think u still have a long way to go,do u want to compare the relationsip of prophet Muhammad and khadija with sugar Mummy syndrome of nowaday,thats totally incomparable,the woman in question had feelings for him,she wooed him and they engage in legal marriage.if u dont know things,ask from those who know, stop messing arround with your empty head, get a life

Well, there is nothing bad in being in love with your cousin,(only if you wants to marry her),in islam,it is allowed to marry one's relative but not direct relative like akin relations(i.e blood brother or sister).It happened during the time of Prophet Muhammad (SAW) when prophet's daughter,Fatima got married to prophet brother Sayidina Ali.so, its not a Big deal,if you think she posseses what you want in a woman and you think u can end the rest of your live with her in peace and happiness, Go ahead and let your parents know your feelings, GOD WILL GUIDE YOU.

its Possible, it happened to me in year 2000,but you need to call the guy and sit him down,try to let him know your heart so that he wont be deceived, pls, be a Good Girl

LOL, This is Hilarious,but, God Luck hahahahahahahahaha

Never, Over My dead Body,i cant do it, its ridiculous,

This is a Big shame to Nollywood,i cant believe that an actor Like Jim iyke who supposed to be a Role Model in our society is messing arround and disgracing Nigeria in US.This is Really Bad and unthinkable